|Previous Section||Back to Table of Contents||Lords Hansard Home Page|
Whether the independent review of the workings of the Criminal Records Bureau made recommendations concerning multiple applications from a single individual; if so, what they were; and when they are due to be implemented.[HL5049]
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: It is not possible to extract this information from the Criminal Records Bureau's database (CRB) because its information technology (IT) system does not provide a facility for this.
The independent review team delivered its conclusions and 10 recommendations to my right honourable friend the Home Secretary last December. My noble and learned friend Lord Falconer of Thoroton set out the Government's response on 27 February 2003, Official Report, (WA 4953). None of the recommendations addressed the issue of multiple applications from a single individual. But we are committed to making the disclosure service as accessible as possible. In order to reduce cost and avoid unnecessary bureaucracy, employers are encouraged to consider accepting a disclosure issued on a previous occasion for a similar purpose. The CRB has produced guidance to assist this process. The arrangements have been kept under review. ra
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: We have always made it clear that the Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) would be financed through the fees charged for providing the disclosure service, and that the fee levels would be subject to regular review. The disclosure fee is determined by a combination of CRB costs and the volume of applications. The level of demand has been lower than expected, due principally to the decision to defer introduction of basic disclosures, while some costs have increasedfor example, as a result of the introduction of a paper application channel in response to customer demand.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Bach): The Government remain committed to funding appropriate research into Gulf veterans' illnesses and factors which might have a bearing on these. Where appropriate to do so, some researchers have already taken account of existing medical records where consent has been provided by veterans. The Government's Gulf veterans' illnesses research programme is guided by expert advice from the independent Medical Research Council (MRC). The MRC has conducted a review of all UK Gulf veterans' illnesses research, and published a report in May 2003 which is available on the Internet at: http://www.mrc.ac.uk/index/publications/publications-researchreviews/public-gulfveterans research.htm. The MRC made a number of recommendations for more research, but did not recommend further research using medical records in the possession of Gulf veterans. The MRC's view was that research aimed at improving the long-term health of Gulf veterans who still have symptoms should take priority.
The MoD's intention in 199091 that immunisation against anthrax was voluntary has been documented in the MoD paper Implementation of the Immunisation Programme against Biological Warfare Agents for UK Forces during the Gulf Conflict 19901991, dated 20 January 2000. This paper is available in the Library of the House and on the Internet at: http://www.mod.uk/issues/gulfwar/info/medical/bwa/chl.htm. As this paper explains, when instructions from MoD headquarters were cascaded down the command chain, in some cases the voluntary nature of the immunisation programme was not adequately communicated, which may have led to a perception that such vaccines were mandatory.
Since 1991, training and briefing procedures have been improved to ensure that the voluntary nature of immunisation against anthrax is fully understood by all personnel offering or receiving the immunisation.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Constitutional Affairs (Lord Filkin): The only information that my department collects about bail decisions is for those made in the Crown Court on whether bail was granted or refused. There are no plans to collect the data suggested.
Lord Filkin: Council Directives 93/109/EC of 6 December 1993 and 94/80/EC of 19 December 1994, implementing article 8B of the Maastricht Treaty, allow any EU citizen to vote and stand as a candidate in their member state of residence in European Parliamentary and municipal elections, respectively. Directive 93/109/EC was implemented in the UK by the European Parliamentary Elections (Changes to the Franchise and Qualification of Representatives) Regulations 1994 (SI 1994/342). Directive 94/80/EC was implemented in the UK by the Local Government Elections (Changes to the Franchise and Qualification
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Hollis of Heigham): The assumptions used were that the basic state pension was increased by 2.5 per cent in the years up to April 2005. In April 2006, the basic state pension was assumed to be uprated by £7 for a single person and £11 for a couple.
After April 2006, the basic state pension was assumed to increase annually in line with average earnings. Medium and long-term projections of average earnings are as published in the 2003 Budget and forecast real earnings growth at 2 per cent.